Marionette possession interactions with sleeping creatures and telepathic targeting

[Mr. Engineer]

How does marionette possession interact with sleeping creatures and telepathic targeting. The rules state that unconscious creatures can be targeted by spells that require a willing target,but does this apply to characters sleeping naturally / put to sleep by magic? and the spell text says will negates but never actually mentions a save in the description, so would they get a will save against the spell? would they be able to end the spell once they woke up? Would I be stuck asleep in the host body if I cast it on a sleeping creature?

And with telepathic targeting it says you can target a creature that is normally out of the spells range, does this mean if i cast the spell on someone really far away through a telepathic bond and they ended up dying that I would die as well? or would I be able to ignore the range requirement because of telepathic bond.

[Diego Rossi]

Marionette possession

What do you mean by "telepathic targeting"?

CRB wrote:

Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature’s Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

The definition of "Unconscious" doesn't include "sleeping", so a sleeping creature isn't unconscious, as far as the rules go.

Will negate is will negate. A willing creature can purposefully forego it, so it says "see text", but it is not forced to do so. The effect is that an unconscious creature is a valid target but it can try to save as it isn't forced into foregoing the save.

[Mr. Engineer]

Diego Rossi wrote:

What do you mean by "telepathic targeting"?

There is a major phrenic amplification for the psychic that allows them to cast mind affecting spells on any creature they have telepathic communication with (e.g. telepathy or telepathic bond)

and what I was more concerned about is can I even cast the spell on them because marionette possession can only target willing creatures

[Pizza Lord]

Being asleep is the same as being unconscious for game purposes. You are considered a willing target. Unconscious does not have to specify giving you additional conditions because it is a common sense issue. Just like they don't say that you fall prone or gain the prone condition if you go unconscious or fall asleep. Just like they don't say you may or may not drop items you are holding in your hand.

They may be different conditions, but that is often because the methods of removing those conditions will differ. For instance, healing a sleeping person might not bring them to consciousness or wake them, but it might for an unconscious person. A spell might only specifically affect a sleeping creature, where it might not affect a purely unconscious creature, such as waking it up. There may be instances where something may clash or overlap or not mesh because of it, but that will happen in any game.

It has been remarked upon by devs as the reason why it isn't listed in the rules; specifically because it is common sense. Which is why that doesn't make it just a dev comment, but more an actual reason they didn't write it as a 'rule'. Otherwise, we have spells like sleep that ignore unconscious targets in their area (presumably so they don't waste the HD limit on already sleeping targets), that wouldn't work on unconscious targets... but still do so on sleeping targets. That's clearly not the intent.

[AwesomenessDog]

I'm not quite sure asleep does count as unconscious and automatically willing and thus allowing a forgo-al of saves, unconscious normally certainly. Take for example the nightmare spell, a spell only meant for sleeping things, and with a will save with no relevant clarifications in it's text about a sleeping creature potentially forgoing the save when they have no reason to believe the spell is hostile.

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Being asleep is the same as being unconscious for game purposes. You are considered a willing target. Unconscious does not have to specify giving you additional conditions because it is a common sense issue. Just like they don't say that you fall prone or gain the prone condition if you go unconscious or fall asleep. Just like they don't say you may or may not drop items you are holding in your hand.

They may be different conditions, but that is often because the methods of removing those conditions will differ. For instance, healing a sleeping person might not bring them to consciousness or wake them, but it might for an unconscious person. A spell might only specifically affect a sleeping creature, where it might not affect a purely unconscious creature, such as waking it up. There may be instances where something may clash or overlap or not mesh because of it, but that will happen in any game.

It has been remarked upon by devs as the reason why it isn't listed in the rules; specifically because it is common sense. Which is why that doesn't make it just a dev comment, but more an actual reason they didn't write it as a 'rule'. Otherwise, we have spells like sleep that ignore unconscious targets in their area (presumably so they don't waste the HD limit on already sleeping targets), that wouldn't work on unconscious targets... but still do so on sleeping targets. That's clearly not the intent.

Unconscious is a condition, and is defined by the rules.

CRB wrote:

Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature’s Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

You can't change that definition to "knocked out, sleeping, drugged with date rape drug or alcohol" because it suits your vision of what it should mean in Pathfinder.

You are citing a Dev comment. Link it.

[Diego Rossi]

AwesomenessDog wrote:

I'm not quite sure asleep does count as unconscious and automatically willing and thus allowing a forgo-al of saves, unconscious normally certainly. Take for example the nightmare spell, a spell only meant for sleeping things, and with a will save with no relevant clarifications in it's text about a sleeping creature potentially forgoing the save when they have no reason to believe the spell is hostile.

Willing doesn't mean you forego the save. It means that you can be targeted by spells that target only willing targets.

"Willing" is in the "Aiming a spell" section of the rules, not under the Saving Throw section.

Under Saving Throw you have:

CRB wrote:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

but it is a completely different matter.

[thistledown]

When you start moving the body around, I'd say that wakes them up and they'll chose if they're a willing target or not.

[AwesomenessDog]

Diego Rossi wrote:

AwesomenessDog wrote:

I'm not quite sure asleep does count as unconscious and automatically willing and thus allowing a forgo-al of saves, unconscious normally certainly. Take for example the nightmare spell, a spell only meant for sleeping things, and with a will save with no relevant clarifications in it's text about a sleeping creature potentially forgoing the save when they have no reason to believe the spell is hostile.

Willing doesn't mean you forego the save. It means that you can be targeted by spells that target only willing targets.

"Willing" is in the "Aiming a spell" section of the rules, not under the Saving Throw section.

Under Saving Throw you have:

CRB wrote:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

but it is a completely different matter.

It doesn't but you also aren't aware enough while unconscious to know if you should be attempting saves or automatically forgoing them because they most likely come from the party and not something giving you nightmares or doing what the OP wants. So it at the least leaves open for a GM to ask or even decide based on past answers if a player would forgo the save or not.

[Diego Rossi]

You get a save when you willingly drink a potion:

FAQ wrote:

Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

and you choose to fail a save, you never have to choose to make one.

CRB wrote:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Even when "paralyzed, held, dying, or otherwise completely immobilized or insensate" you get to roll a save:

FAQ wrote:

Reflex Saves: If I’m paralyzed, held, dying, or otherwise completely immobilized or insensate, can I still attempt a Reflex save?

Yes, you can still attempt a Reflex save, but since your Dexterity is set to 0, you’ll have to replace your Dexterity bonus with a –5 penalty, so you’re not likely to succeed. If you do succeed, it might be due to the power of your cloak of resistance, a good angle for cover, or even luck. Either way, follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save, even if this would change your space, like create pit. However, you lose evasion in these circumstances. If you are under the influence of a rare effect that causes you to be immobilized or insensate and allows ongoing Reflex saves to escape the effect, as an exception to the rule, you can use your full Dexterity bonus (instead of a –5 penalty) for the purpose of attempting those ongoing saves only, since your full Dexterity is at work within the confines of the spell, trying to break free.

I don't see any basis to argue that being asleep remove that choice from the player and put it in the hands of the GM.

At most you can argue that the player can't willingly give up the possibility to roll a save as he is sleeping and has no information on who cast the spell.

[Diego Rossi]

One of the differences between being asleep and unconscious:

- a creature sleeping can make a perception roll with a DC of +10 to wake up when something happens.
- an unconscious creature can't wake up until it has healed enough to have at least 0 hp.

Besides the loss of HP there are a few other ways to become unconscious, but sleeping isn't one of them.

Sleep wrote:

Sleeping creatures are helpless.

CRB wrote:

Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound,

sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.

The helpèless condition differentiates between sleeping and unconscious.

[AwesomenessDog]

Diego Rossi wrote:

At most you can argue that the player can't willingly give up the possibility to roll a save as he is sleeping and has no information on who cast the spell.

That is the exact point I am making, except that would also mean players have to will roll saves for healing while they are unconscious, and that is clearly the opposite of the rules' intent.

[Pizza Lord]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Pizza Lord wrote:

Being asleep is the same as being unconscious for game purposes. You are considered a willing target. Unconscious does not have to specify giving you additional conditions because it is a common sense issue. Just like they don't say that you fall prone or gain the prone condition if you go unconscious or fall asleep. Just like they don't say you may or may not drop items you are holding in your hand.

You are citing a Dev comment. Link it.

Sleep

Being asleep means you aren't conscious. It doesn't have to be a rule or spelled out because it is considered common sense. Just like sleep will not target sleeping creatures in its area even though it says 'unconscious'. It would make no sense.

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Pizza Lord wrote:

Being asleep is the same as being unconscious for game purposes. You are considered a willing target. Unconscious does not have to specify giving you additional conditions because it is a common sense issue. Just like they don't say that you fall prone or gain the prone condition if you go unconscious or fall asleep. Just like they don't say you may or may not drop items you are holding in your hand.

You are citing a Dev comment. Link it.

Sleep

Being asleep means you aren't conscious. It doesn't have to be a rule or spelled out because it is considered common sense. Just like sleep will not target sleeping creatures in its area even though it says 'unconscious'. It would make no sense.

JJ isn't a rules developer, he is the Creative Director. At one time he was reprimanded for responding to rule questions. His opinion is worth a bit more than yours or mine as he has a lot of experience, but it isn't dev input (unless he is speaking of Golarion specific rules).

One of the posts where he say that.

[Matthew Morris]

If I'm looking at this kind of corner case as a player, my thought is, if I can hose the bad guy while he's asleep, he can do the same.

In this case, it is an instakill spell. "I possess Bob while he's asleep, I slit his throat, I return to my own body and take a lozenge."

If I'm a DM, I explain this to the player. I then say 'no.' If he really pushes it, he does this once. Then the person's family hires a wizard to scry and possess the PC...

[Pizza Lord]

Diego Rossi wrote:

JJ isn't a rules developer, he is the Creative Director. At one time he was reprimanded for responding to rule questions. His opinion is worth a bit more than yours or mine as he has a lot of experience, but it isn't dev input (unless he is speaking of Golarion specific rules).

It doesn't matter whether he made the rules for being Unconscious, the sleep spell, the rules for resting, or a single rule at all. Sleep is not a defined condition. It uses common sense, that means anyone can point out why it isn't needed to have a rule for it, whether they are a Rules Dev, a Creative Consultant, or someone who has never opened a Pathfinder book and read a rule in their life. Unless the rules specifically say otherwise, you go with common sense. If an effect puts a target into a 'coma', we don't need a rule that gives the exact parameters of a coma (not saying they wouldn't be helpful or appreciated, but if they aren't there, most GMs can determine that Unconscious is probably equitable and, if that's the case, there's no reason to bother defining something that's commonly understood to be equivalent and similar).

If someone asks in the Rules forum whether a 7th-level fireball does more damage dice than a 5th-level fireball, we don't need to have the Rules explain that 7 is greater than 5. We certainly don't need to have the person who wrote the fireball spell tell us that or even the head designer or the CEO of Wizards of the Coast. Any one of us, yes, including James Jacobs, can answer, 'A 7th-level spell deals 7d6 and a 5th-level spell deals 5d6,' and not have to hear about how they're suddenly making 'official rulings' about what '7' and '5' mean and they've already been reprimanded once before!

The common sense understanding is that being asleep is the same as being unconscious. The main difference being what can rouse you from that state, but that has no impact on the effects of being asleep.

Diego Rossi wrote:

CRB wrote:

Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature’s Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

If we ascribed to your assertion, we'd have no idea what an unconscious person could or couldn't do other than what's described in 'helpless'. If we literally read the rules definition of the Unconscious condition you quoted, they're 'knocked out and helpless'. So other than whatever helpless does, 'knocked out' is specifically called out. There's no ruling on being 'knocked out'. Are we to assume that an unconscious creature doesn't fall prone? Are they not considered blind or unable to see and perceive their surrounding while 'knocked out'? Do they not drop items held?

Basically all that leaves is that we know they're 'helpless'. 'Helpless' doesn't necessarily mean they can't talk (you can be bound and tied up and helpless and still talk, just like you can be gagged and can't talk but not be helpless). Can they see? Can they cast spells or use purely mental ability that don't require movement (they have an effective Dex of 0), like Stilled Silent spells? No! Of course they can't, because we know what being unconscious means! We have a basic understanding of what's supposed to happened even though unconscious is a defined condition in the game with a description that doesn't fully detail the ramifications of being unconscious... because they didn't define they didn't have to declare the common sense parts of it! If we do something that 'knocks out' a waiter carrying a platter of food, we can make a common sense understanding that he or she is, very likely, unconscious, prone, and dropped the platter of food. Just like we put that same waiter to sleep without 'knocking them out' or 'knocking them unconscious'... we know there's no difference in their state other than how they got there and how they might be roused from it.

We don't need someone to tell us that being 'knocked out' is actually the same as being 'unconscious' and the fact that it's used as a defining example of being unconscious, while having no in-game definition itself, only further highlights the absurdity of pretending that common sense shouldn't be used. It's the same thing with sleeping. The fact that unconscious didn't list sleeping, comatose, catatonic, or epileptic doesn't mean that someone is 'conscious' during those situations. Are there exceptions, of course. Some people can sleep with their eyes open and might actually have a greater chance of waking from a visual disturbance than a normal person, but they still aren't considered 'conscious' while sleeping with their eyes open any more than a sleeping person is considered conscious because a loud noise could wake them.

It's the same thing with being asleep. The fact that James Jacobs happened to address the reason that there isn't a ruling (and I think he explained it succinctly and well), does not invalidate that it is the correct answer just because he didn't write the Conditions section of the rules. A two-year old giving the same answer would be just as correct. He is not making an official ruling. He is telling you why there isn't an official ruling or a need for one.

[Diego Rossi]

You can wake up from unconscious because someone shouts?

You are equating unconscious to asleep, but they are functionally different.
Ask a Medicine Doctor if they are the same thing or not.

[Pizza Lord]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can wake up from unconscious because someone shouts?

What does ending a condition have to do with this thread? No one is claiming that. Or are you claiming that?

'Diego Rossi" wrote:

You are equating unconscious to asleep, but they are functionally different.

No. They are actually functionally identical for almost all purposes and for the purposes of this thread. The methods of ending their conditions might be different, but that does not make the conditions themselves functionally different. They actually have nearly identical functions and results.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ask a Medicine Doctor if they are the same thing or not.

Ask a 'Medicine Doctor' if a sleeping person is considered conscious? Ask them if a comatose person is considered 'conscious'. Ask them if a catatonic person is considered 'conscious'?

A person who is not 'conscious' is considered willing. Being 'unconscious' is certainly considered not being 'conscious' but for being a willing target, the rules go on to describe a person who is conscious but immobile (even helpless). The fact that sleeping isn't the same as the Unconscious condition, does not mean a sleeping person is conscious.

Sleep definition

Quote:

the natural, easily reversible periodic state of many living things that is marked by the absence of wakefulness and by the loss of consciousness of one's surroundings,

Is Sleeping Considered Unconscious

Quote:

Is Sleeping considered unconscious?

Sleep is defined as a state of unconsciousness from which a person can be aroused, therefore, external stimuli have no effect. In this state, the brain is relatively more responsive to internal stimuli than external stimuli. Sleep should be distinguished from coma.

Whether you can be roused with a shout back to consciousness is not at issue to this discussion. It is whether or not you are conscious while sleeping (You are not).

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can wake up from unconscious because someone shouts?

What does ending a condition have to do with this thread? No one is claiming that. Or are you claiming that?

Because it is a way in which Pathfinder differentiates sleeping from unconscious conditions.

An unconscious creature is knocked out and until it is healed or heals naturally he can't remove the unconscious condition. A sleeping creature can wake by itself or can be wakened by another creature by shaking it.

Pizza Lord wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You are equating unconscious to asleep, but they are functionally different.

No. They are actually functionally identical for almost all purposes and for the purposes of this thread. The methods of ending their conditions might be different, but that does not make the conditions themselves functionally different. They actually have nearly identical functions and results.

You haven't proven that, you have simply stated it multiple times. Your common sense isn't a rule and isn't worth more than the common sense of another persons that disagree with you.

Pizza Lord wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ask a Medicine Doctor if they are the same thing or not.

Ask a 'Medicine Doctor' if a sleeping person is considered conscious? Ask them if a comatose person is considered 'conscious'. Ask them if a catatonic person is considered 'conscious'?

A person who is not 'conscious' is considered willing. Being 'unconscious' is certainly considered not being 'conscious' but for being a willing target, the rules go on to describe a person who is conscious but immobile (even helpless). The fact that sleeping isn't the same as the Unconscious condition, does not mean a sleeping person is conscious.

What? You are saying that in the rules if something is not A it means it is B?

For it to be B you need something that says it is B, otherwise, it is simply non-A.

A Cleric isn't a non-Wizard. A Supernatural ability isn't a non-spell.
Non-conscious isn't unconscious. Unconscious is defined and sleep doesn't make you unconscious.

[willuwontu]

Exactly, and since neither sleep nor unconsciousness make your drop items or fall prone, you can hold onto your items while standing up after getting struck with those conditions.